Lookout Editorial Board endorsements: Lane County ballot measures

Today the Lookout Eugene-Springfield Editorial Board concludes its endorsements for the Nov. 3 general election with Lane County ballot measures.

The editorial board spoke with measure supporters and opponents, reviewed campaign statements and researched the issues behind each measure before making its decisions.

On Wednesday, the editorial board announced its endorsements for Oregon legislative races. Thursday, it released its endorsements for governor, Congress and U.S. Senate. And yesterday, it announced candidate endorsements for Eugene, Springfield and Lane County races.

Lookout’s general election coverage is free for all readers to learn about the candidates and measures on the November ballot.

Eugene Clean Energy Fund: Support*

How far can taxing big corporations get a city?

Eugene voters have a chance to find out. But answering that question won’t just require voters passing Measure 20-388, which would charge a 2% fee on some of the biggest companies’ local profits to fund sustainability projects across the city.

It would require the Eugene City Council taking one of the most politically courageous stands it has ever taken.

Voters should pass the Eugene Clean Energy Fund ballot measure. Then, before the fee takes effect in 2029, the City Council should start a community discussion about diverting at least half of the estimated $15 million annual fund to put it to more immediate needs.

We can hear the collective thud this idea would land with among the clean energy fund’s backers. They collected more than 14,000 signatures to place it on the ballot, and have campaigned hard on the measure’s merits: reducing Eugene’s carbon emissions and empowering local nonprofits to implement climate resiliency projects. Big corporations paying up in the name of the public good.

But hear us out on the public good part. If the fee does generate $15 million annually (and it could very well be higher or lower), just half of that total could:

• Fully restore funding for CAHOOTS, at an estimated cost of $2.2 million per year.
• Give $2 million a year to Homes for Good to acquire properties in Eugene for low-income housing developments.
• Give the Eugene Water & Electric Board $2.1 million to assist limited-income customers with their utility bills, doubling the amount it committed to bill assistance this year.
• Give SquareOne Villages $1.2 million a year to build more tiny house communities.

This is the same debate playing out in Portland, where voters in 2018 passed a similar measure that’s raising about $200 million per year for clean energy projects — dwarfing the $30 million a year its backers initially thought the fee would generate. The huge discrepancy has spurred discussions among Portland city leaders about diverting some of the funds to convert office buildings into housing, improve public transit, hire police officers and even renovate the Portland Trailblazers’ arena.

Those debates have been fierce, and we’re not trying to downplay the betrayal Eugene Clean Energy Fund supporters might feel were the City Council to take this step. It does seem a bit undemocratic for an elected body to take money voters approved for one purpose to use for another. Certainly it would be fair to reserve a portion of the fund for its original intent. 

But the text of the measure leaves open the possibility for councilors to exert some authority. A nine-member committee would be tasked with recommending funds for clean energy projects to the City Council, which “shall generally accept the funding recommendations.” But council has the right to not only reject a recommendation, but change aspects of the law if it chooses.

Eugene has so many needs — housing affordability chief among them. Clean energy fund supporters say their climate work would reduce household energy costs, but government agencies like EWEB could lower utility costs faster and more efficiently than nonprofits.

We’re eager for a future president to reverse the Trump administration’s cuts to a raft of federal clean energy tax credits passed during the Biden administration. Those tax credits, for projects like clean fuel production, household energy-efficiency upgrades, electric vehicle purchases and more, would throw the muscle of the federal government behind some of the same projects the Eugene Clean Energy Fund aims to support.

We implore the City Council to see the wisdom of this idea, and start a process with supporters and the community about using half of the clean energy fund dollars to more directly help people afford the cost of living in Eugene.

We’re clear-eyed about the long odds this prospect faces. Four of the eight members of the next City Council term, starting in January, have endorsed the measure for its intended purpose. That would rise to an outright majority if Athena Aguiar unseats Ward 5 Councilor Mike Clark.

Regardless, we view the fee as a one-time opportunity to make the biggest corporations pay up so life can be a bit better for Eugene residents who need the most help. What’s more progressive than that?

Dunes City short-term rental ban: Oppose

No one wants bad neighbors. They’re noisy, they leave garbage strewn around and are notoriously difficult to get rid of.

But the solution proposed by some Dunes City residents fed up with rowdy Airbnb house parties is far too punitive. Supporters of the city measure barring new permits for short-term rentals, and putting onerous requirements on existing ones, say they’re entitled to the peace and quiet of rural living.

But we don’t feel they’re entitled to change the rules for the majority of short-term rental owners whose guests respect their neighbors, which is why we urge Dunes City residents to reject Measure 20-386.

We’re not talking about a large group of offenders here. There are 26 registered short-term rentals in the city limits, nine below the city’s cap. Those owners must have an emergency contact available within a 30-minute drive of the property to respond to any issues. The city can revoke or decline to renew a property owner’s license if there are too many problems.

Measure 20-386 would severely tighten up the rules — so much so that we question whether more than a small handful of owners would be able to keep renting out their properties. Those 26 rental owners would be retroactively required to provide an on-site host staying on the property while guests are there. If bookings drop because guests are creeped out by sharing their vacation home with a stranger, well, the owner can simply spend a few hundred thousand dollars building an accessory dwelling unit for the host to stay in.

The measure’s supporters make a fair point that absentee landlords shouldn’t ruin neighbors’ quality of life just to make money. But there are processes in place to deal with the issues they’re fighting against. In fact, the rental property where large gatherings spurred the ballot measure push recently had its permit revoked. 

Measure 20-386 feels like a wildly impractical solution to a real but manageable problem. Its passage would hurt more Dunes City residents than it would help, which is why we urge voters to maintain the status quo.

Oakridge ambulance levy: Support

For Oakridge’s 3,200 residents, every medical emergency is a race against the clock. 

A ride to PeaceHealth Sacred Heart Medical Center at RiverBend might take 45 minutes via an Oakridge Fire and EMS ambulance. But without adequate funding, Oakridge ambulance service won’t be a given much longer. In that worst-case scenario, a critical injury might mean a 45-minute drive just for an ambulance from the Eugene-Springfield area to reach the patient, before another 45-minute trip back to RiverBend.

Those are critical minutes Oakridge residents can’t afford. That’s why we endorse Oakridge’s five-year ambulance levy as the first step needed to maintain this valuable service.

Passing the levy wouldn’t really create a new funding stream. Instead, it would convert the existing $17 monthly fee Oakridge residents pay on their water bills into a property tax levy equal to about $17 a month for the owner of a median-priced home in Oakridge, roughly $123,000. The property tax would raise slightly more over its five-year timespan than the fee, since assessed property values typically rise by 3% each year, while the fee remains flat.

Even if the levy passes, Oakridge leaders will have more work to do to preserve the city’s ambulance service, which is running at a $500,000 annual deficit. But it’s hard to think of a more essential government service than an ambulance. And as the farthest Lane County population center from a hospital, it’s an even more essential service in Oakridge. Voters should pass the levy as just one of several steps to ensure the safety of their fellow residents.

Western Lane Ambulance District levy: Support

I believe we were just discussing the importance of ambulance service to rural communities?

What’s true for east Lane County must be true for the west as well. And since the Western Lane Ambulance District is merely asking voters to renew an existing levy at its current rate, rather than an increase, we can easily give it our support.

Residents in the nearly 700-square-mile coverage area, which includes the city of Florence, rural coastal and inland communities, rely on Western Lane Ambulance District as their first responder in an emergency.

For nearly 15 years, property owners in the district have paid a tax of $45 a year for every $100,000 of their property’s assessed value. Renewing the levy won’t change the tax bill at all. But the alternative for west Lane County residents might be slower response times when an emergency strikes, if there’s a response at all.

Is less ambulance coverage worth a few dollars a month in tax relief? Not at all. We urge voters in the Western Lane Ambulance District to keep their commitment to emergency medical care and renew the levy for five more years.